Plasma 2 Technology Preview demonstrates the current development status. The Plasma 2 user interfaces are built using QML and run on top of a fully hardware accelerated graphics stack using Qt5, QtQuick 2 and an OpenGL(-ES) scenegraph. Plasma 2 is a converged workspace shell that can run and switch between user interfaces for different formfactors, and makes the workspace adaptable to a given target device.

Plasma 2 is not a complete rewrite; it's a port to a new graphics system (a fully hardware accelerated OpenGL(ES) scenegraph).

Unity, KDE, and LXDE/RazorQt. Qt and QML are the future of desktop environments for Linux. Couple that with the replacement of X and 2014 is going to see some kick ass improvements is the polish and feel of the UI.

I used to prefer the KDE3+qt3 too but since version 4.8 that feeling started to linger and lately with all the "deduplication" and "moving" of layers of code from KDE to Qt I have no such "missing" anymore.

Granted, I don't like the new menu but it is a "right click" away to restore it to "classical", what I always, do.

KDE4 is very, very customizable and, at least for me, the best DE out plus Qt is an awesome toolkit to use and if you really like or need to make multi-platform apps it seems to be the best option.

I'll probably get hate for saying this but the file explorer is probably one of the places where KDE really SHOULD copy Windows more,specifically the Win 7 File explorer.

With the default 2 pane, with favorites/libraries/homegroup/computer/network it makes it insanely easy to get from anyplace on your LAN to anyplace else, the breadcrumbs and jumplists make going back to where you were previous no more than 2 clicks away, it takes me less than 10 minutes to show any clueless user enough that they can feel like they are in control and have the ability to manipulate their files with ease and shouldn't that be the ultimate goal of a file explorer? Give the user control?

That said with MSFT happily shooting themselves in the face trying to be a REALLY shitty half baked Apple Linux has never had as big a shot as they do now. With something like a third of all the world's PCs running XP why isn't anybody trying to capitalize on this? The world needs another plasma like a hole in the head, what we REALLY need is a version of Linux that looks like a cross between XP and Win 7 and will happily run on all the 2.x GHz, 512Mb of RAM XP boxes that are about to go EOL.

Sorry if I sound a little ranty but as a system builder I find this VERY frustrating. I mean the brass ring is RIGHT THERE, the finish line is in sight, all you have to do is reach out and grasp it....and the entire Linux community has plopped down on the playing field to write Bash scripts and argue about whether KDE or Gnome is better....sigh.

With the default 2 pane, with favorites/libraries/homegroup/computer/network it makes it insanely easy to get from anyplace on your LAN to anyplace else, the breadcrumbs and jumplists make going back to where you were previous no more than 2 clicks away, it takes me less than 10 minutes to show any clueless user enough that they can feel like they are in control and have the ability to manipulate their files with ease and shouldn't that be the ultimate goal of a file explorer? Give the user control?

So, I totally thought you were talking about Dolphin there. Breadcrumbs, places, previews, network and history as places, metaplaces based on searches and tags/"libraries"...
Oh, and it has tabs, non-limited tagging, dual-pane, inbuilt terminal, etc. etc.

It can do everything MS's one can, just as easily, and it has boatloads more features to boot; Dolphin is indesputably the best filemanager out there (excepting *maybe* konqueror/krusader, but they're not as widely usable).

Since when? With Windows libraries it does not matter WHERE a program stores a video/song/picture it will look as though its in a single "library" which other programs can then access.

For example i have plenty of systems where the user had me add a second drive because they were filling up the first with music and video and with the libraries they don't have to go "Is that on the original drive, or is it on the new drive?" because not only is it in the library but programs like Windows Media Center can be told "Oh just use the library" and it'll have all the data, no matter where the actual location is. I have never seen Dolphin do anything close to that.

And since you brought it up...WTF is it with the fugly as hell design of Dolphin? I swear its defaults look like something out of the Win9X era, the font choice is horrible, the icons are all ugly, its like nobody at the Dolphin team have a clue when it comes to aesthetics! I mean sure you could tweak it but as we all know first impressions count and a good 90% of users will just take the defaults and the defaults are bloody awful!

And since you brought it up...WTF is it with the fugly as hell design of Dolphin? I swear its defaults look like something out of the Win9X era, the font choice is horrible, the icons are all ugly, its like nobody at the Dolphin team have a clue when it comes to aesthetics! I mean sure you could tweak it but as we all know first impressions count and a good 90% of users will just take the defaults and the defaults are bloody awful!

If you think it looks like win 9x you need to get your eyes fixed. I cannot say that its the best looking program in the world, but it isn't ugly. Fonts and style are governed by KDE not dolphin.

Look at Dolphin in the image attached to my original post. Looks nothing like Win9x. I'll agree that the oxygen icons are ugly, but there is no real alternative; no other iconset has every action/place/mimetype covered.

Nepomuk has indexes for every file in the system, so with Dolphin, you can hit search, limit that by tags or filetype (document/image/video/audio), limit it by date, and then you can pin that search's parameters as a place.

To use a slashdot car analogy that is like saying "Sure this bike can do everything a truck can, all you have to do is take a LOT of trips, don't care about weather, etc" because what you just described? NOTHING like a library, nothing at all.

With a library it doesn't matter if I splatter my music across C:-F: because its all in the music library and what is more any program can access it as though its in a single folder.....see the difference now? All your "solution" does is tell the user where the file is....that's it, that's ALL it does. Does it automagically tell the media players, the file system and anything else that can open that type where it is AND give it to the user as a single folder for easy access?

Sorry but the file management in Linux is a good decade behind, sorry but it is. And while it may not exactly look like win9X? The icons and fonts are fugly as hell, they really are. I will give them credit, it may be up to beOS or late Amiga but it certainly doesn't look as nice as XP, much less Win 7.

Note that I'm biased, so I wanted it to look like windows 8, whose theme I *love*.

The image looks like an alpha version to me. I can vaguely see the resemblance to win8 in the titlebar but... Almost everything feels out of place and cluttered. Especially the systray. Have you seen Gnome3? That one feels serene to me.

What's wrong with the systray? I would have preferred mono icons, but you try getting those for every background app you need.
Since then, I've dropped the desktops back to 4, and they're not always full, but having the icons on them is excellent for remembering where stuff is.
I can turn that off, and just use present desktops or present windows, all desktops (I use a macbook, so they're bound to the expose/workspaces buttons)

If I just removed the desktop pager and taskbar, then swapped to a flat iconset, it would be wonderful, right?

I've seen Gnome3; it looks horrendous.
It actually looks like a first prototype mocked up in GIMP; their black bar at the top with the white text, the roundness everywhere... It's not crisp or sharp at all.

KDE 4 looks horribly dated and unprofessional. I used to love KDE 3 and I still think it was better than this iteration. They should really consider changing the default theme.

BTW, the menu sucks big time. Not slower than Unity, but still slow enough.

Plastik (both the windeco and the style) is still available for KDE4. Or if you want something newer, there are hundreds of modern, minimalist Qtcurve themes at KDE-look.org. In fact, KDE goes so far as to do the work for you; the built-in theme selector will load additional themes directly from that site.

KDE still has a *lot* of problems, including the default setup (what ever happened to that first-time setup wizard we had with KDE3?), but it's trivial to make it work to your liking.

Plastik (both the windeco and the style) is still available for KDE4. Or if you want something newer, there are hundreds of modern, minimalist Qtcurve themes at KDE-look.org. In fact, KDE goes so far as to do the work for you; the built-in theme selector will load additional themes directly from that site.

KDE still has a *lot* of problems, including the default setup (what ever happened to that first-time setup wizard we had with KDE3?), but it's trivial to make it work to your liking.

Hardly. Themes and such are just new paint on the old stuff, it doesn't make the old stuff new; there are serious fundamental issues all over the place, like e.g. there are like a dozen of these theme-selector tabs, each and every one of them functionally different, some of them feature the said downloader/installer-thing, some of them can only install from local packages, some of them can't install at all and so on -- there's no coherence or consistency anywhere and it's a huge pile of developer-designed mess instead of being dictated by a real designer.

I do echo the sentiment so many others here are saying: KDE looks old and behaves illogically, is riddled with outdated thinking, there's no thought given to the flow of the most common tasks and it seriously lacks that genuine discoverability that would make adjusting to it so much easier.

This announcement here, the move to fully-hardware accelerated rendering, is a big thing and I laud them for that -- higher FPS, smaller draw on the battery, more fluid UI and so on -- but I really hope that once the transition is over they'll sit down and really work on the UI-design and behaviour for all the optimizations and fluidity in the world won't fix poor design.

No, you didn't get it. The effort of Plasma 2 wasn't to make it look differently. It was to switch backends and underlying infra (like switching to mentioned Wayland and QML). Once that is done, they'll start focusing on redesign. Claiming they need to do all at once is silly.

Let me make a crazy suggestion. It is possible to have an excellent UI and UX ... with technology from 20 years ago. Todays UIs and UX with modern powerful effects and acceleration is well far behind that of 20 years ago.

This is why people who need to work are migrating towards XFCE, and people long for Gnome2 style desktops.

+1. I could even get as far as going full XMonad+rxvt if I wanted the complete old days experience.

Apple may have lost it's focus, but their UI is better than all others. It's no wonder that one of the most common linux distributions is somewhat similar to OS X UI wise. People like simple, easy, fast and powerful.

But compared to some of the others around it is far better.
Personally I've found Gnome 3.10 and the latest Unity to be unusable. KDE is a little better. These are all the OOTB, un-tweaked experiences.
The train wreck that is TIFKAM is just making things work.

The average user wants things presented to them in easy accessible ways. KB Shortcuts and hidden charms just won't cut it.

But compared to some of the others around it is far better.
Personally I've found Gnome 3.10 and the latest Unity to be unusable. KDE is a little better. These are all the OOTB, un-tweaked experiences.
The train wreck that is TIFKAM is just making things work.

The average user wants things presented to them in easy accessible ways. KB Shortcuts and hidden charms just won't cut it.

You just confirmed today that the beauty of UX is a matter of subjective experience.
I've found GNOME and KDE (Except Mandriva-based KDE)to be ugly and unusable for my taste than Ubuntu's Unity.

Keep in mind that UI can only target *certain* group of people.
Go GNOME3, and you risk alienating power users.
Go KDE, and people will complain about too-many-options / bad-defaults /etc.
Go Windows 8, you'll most likely annoy anyone without a touch screen, etc, etc, etc.

You just described Windows 8 Metro and its applications. Seems to be a thing of the times.

I think Windows retains simplicity while creating a new UX. But that new user experience alienates people.

But KDE really have too many customizations USERS don't need. I don't know if their mailing lists were bombarded by this issue, but I just don't care because their is a better alternative. Until then, KDE I will never recommend especially to new users, and that according to my experience.

Exactly. Seems like all the complaints are "this looks dated, the design didn't change" etc. They all miss the point of the transition. KDE will go back to design issues after the major switch to Wayland, QML, etc. They aren't doing it at the same time.

So you tell me all applications are going to be redesigned as plasma widgets? Other than that, I don't see how an unrelated change in technology is going to fix the UI problem.

I also don't think KDE devs are being reasonable. Widgets are not the most fundamental part in a desktop. We had widgets in all major desktops, FOSS and commercial and we also had spinning cubes and what not. And guess what... they don't matter at all. People don't use them that much. They are there for visual candy and notifications, but people use applications. Are you redesigning the UI too?

So you tell me all applications are going to be redesigned as plasma widgets? Other than that, I don't see how an unrelated change in technology is going to fix the UI problem.

It doesn't fix the "problem", it enables redesigning the UI using a new foundation. Starting redesiging it now, while not being already based on new middleware would be a waste and duplication of effort.

If you want to know the logic behind that, read something on KDE roadmap. They are pretty openly developed and all that info is publicly available.

The transition to Plasma 2 started a while ago, and it's planned to be ended in 2014. So what does that "never ended" supposed to mean? So far they are progressing as scheduled. Again, we are talking about technology transition, not about transition in interface design paradigms.

True. The default KDE theme is horrible and it always has been. It can be made a lot prettier with QtCurve and a different desktop theme fortunately. I understand that everybody's taste is different and it's hard to decide on a default look and feel, but I still think they should have gone for a more sane default with a background, opacity and colours that are easier on the eyes.

I have the same problem with Unity actually. The theme just feels too heavy. Gnome3 is a lot better in that regard, but I strongly dislike its functionality (or lack thereof).

So what is shown here is new with old mixed together, I guess. Nothing wrong with that per se, but how many years has KDE 4 been in development? And this is the result of that? It's a mess, as people have mentioned already. But instead ot hoping that they'll fix the UI after the foundation is laid, I think that they've shown with KDE4 that they will never do that. They've had god knows how many years, and they didn't do it then.

Meanwhile, my XFCE4 desktop does everything I want without looking like someone beat it with an ugly stick.

Plasma 2 + Wayland + qt5 will not be enough for kde to get better at anything. It's just a simple step forward towards a wish for a step forward.

Linux is broken in so many ways on desktop, not even 5 more iterations on any project will be enough to fix it into a usable option.

It's nice to play with it once in a while, maybe steal a new ideea .

We all hope that *the next version will fix that, add that, change that*. But it's a lie, every single time.

I kind of understand the developers. They work as a hobby, and the result is the same, a new hobby for hobbyists.

KDE3 dead.
Gnome2 dead.
KDE4 broken in all possible ways.
Gnome 3 feels like a demo of a joke.
Unity is the best example of good concept bad implementation.
Razor-qt, lxde, xfce, are so inconsistent in every aspect.
Cinnamon promised the classic workflow, not.
MATE it's a paraplegic gnome 2.

So many options but none of them feels right.

Also, every single DE comes with its own set of apps (which kind of defines the DE itself) and there are the same shitty rewrites.

They try to bring linux to the masses, but it doesnt even work for themselves.

Sorry to disturb your soul in this way, but that is what i feel about linux desktop right now and I find gnome 3 to be the most useless *mac simplicity-wannabe clone* out there.

Bling bling, they caught your eyes, bling bling.

Also linux has this 'extremes' history:
"if it works, fuck it and lets redesign or bloat it!"
"if it works, fuck it and lets abandon it!"
"if it doesnt work, fuck it, why would YOU want that?"

But there are tons and tons of other more important problems in Linux than a bunch of crippled desktop environment. And maybe you really don't know how a desktop should be used for working, NOT FIXING IT!

I used to love KDE. I've used KDE since the 1.X days on suse (very well integrated for the day), debian and slack.
2.x came and it was awesome. 1.x, but better.
3.x came out, and it too was awesome, save for some K menu idiocy;

4.x is just a mess. It feels as if someone tried to botch kde 3.x and some other DE/interface together, and they failed. The UI is inconsistent. The widgets in dialogs look like regular QT apps, but the desktop is this floaty transparent thing. The panel has gone to hell.
Plasma and QT both have their own themes, and they always look inconsistent, no matter what you do. Konq is still kludgey (is that a word?).

I think their problem is comparable to the win8 situation. Two different UIs poorly integrated and crammed into one "package".

I think they have to make a choice here. Go full touchey feely transparent everything ... or go back to the old days and be a damn good DE. I'd switch back in an instant.

2 extra cents: Touch interfaces don't work on the desktop, and nobody should attempt to integrate the two. IMHO KDE should go back and start focussing on the desktop again. They've always kicked ass until plasma came along.
They would gain serious share if they came out with an honest, decent DE again. It would be a breath of fresh air among the unities and gnome 3's of the world.

What does this mean for computers that have older graphics cards or poor Linux driver support for advanced compositing/3D graphics functions? Does this mean that KDE will be added to the list of desktop environments that won't run until proper compositing/3D graphics support is enabled on the base system?

For example, Gnome 3.x and Cinnamon and Unity have LLVMpipe support, but on many systems they still won't load until proprietary drivers are configured. Or, if they do load, they run dreadfully slowly as the CPU tries to do the work of the GPU. This is common on Nvidia and Radeon systems. Fortunately systems with Intel graphics usually work better out of the box.

I always admired KDE 4 (although I can't stand it for other reasons that don't matter in this discussion) because it allows the user to select the graphics backend for rendering effects. It defaults to some basic, standard, X protocol (don't remember the name) for basic rendering, which works well out of the box on virtually any system. No "fallback mode" or drastic interface changes required to get basic functionality from the computer. Then later if the user wants to he can change the rendering method to something more advanced, including openGL. Will this be maintained in KDE 5? Or will KDE be added to the list of desktop environments that lead to initial failure due to graphics issues, and new users subsequently giving up on Linux at first sight because "it doesn't work" or "it's awfully slow"?

I'm not trying to harass anybody about this, but it does genuinely concern me and I'd like to know.

What does this mean for computers that have older graphics cards or poor Linux driver support for advanced compositing/3D graphics functions? Does this mean that KDE will be added to the list of desktop environments that won't run until proper compositing/3D graphics support is enabled on the base system?

For example, Gnome 3.x and Cinnamon and Unity have LLVMpipe support, but on many systems they still won't load until proprietary drivers are configured. Or, if they do load, they run dreadfully slowly as the CPU tries to do the work of the GPU. This is common on Nvidia and Radeon systems. Fortunately systems with Intel graphics usually work better out of the box.

I always admired KDE 4 (although I can't stand it for other reasons that don't matter in this discussion) because it allows the user to select the graphics backend for rendering effects. It defaults to some basic, standard, X protocol (don't remember the name) for basic rendering, which works well out of the box on virtually any system. No "fallback mode" or drastic interface changes required to get basic functionality from the computer. Then later if the user wants to he can change the rendering method to something more advanced, including openGL. Will this be maintained in KDE 5? Or will KDE be added to the list of desktop environments that lead to initial failure due to graphics issues, and new users subsequently giving up on Linux at first sight because "it doesn't work" or "it's awfully slow"?

I'm not trying to harass anybody about this, but it does genuinely concern me and I'd like to know.

Your comment is significantly out of date. Radeon graphics on Linux these days works very well indeed out of the box. The Intel driver is generally a few months ahead of Radeon driver in advancing the OpenGL version supported, but that is about it.

New users subsequently giving up on Linux at first sight because "it doesn't work" or "it's awfully slow" (I take it you mean 'out of the box') ... this is likely to happen these days only for nVidia systems without the nvidia proprietary binary blob driver installed.

KDE in particular these days is a very slick desktop out of the box on Intel or AMD/ATI systems. Far faster and less frustrating than Windows on the same hardware.

KDE in particular these days is a very slick desktop out of the box on Intel or AMD/ATI systems. Far faster and less frustrating than Windows on the same hardware.

I don't dispute this. As I mentioned in my first post, I admire KDE 4.x because it does run on pretty much any computer that has a working Xorg with no special graphics requirements. My concern is that KDE 5 will be a drastic regression in this respect.

"KDE in particular these days is a very slick desktop out of the box on Intel or AMD/ATI systems. Far faster and less frustrating than Windows on the same hardware.

I don't dispute this. As I mentioned in my first post, I admire KDE 4.x because it does run on pretty much any computer that has a working Xorg with no special graphics requirements. My concern is that KDE 5 will be a drastic regression in this respect. "

I don't see how, at least on Intel or AMD/ATI systems. As I said, capable open source graphics drivers with very decent performance are already working out of the box on Intel or AMD/ATI systems. This includes hardware video decoding, dynamic power management and full 3D support.

As the article linked to is all about, given working graphics drivers, the move to Plasma 2 is a performance boost, not a regression.

It is still grounded in the same failure vision that made KDE 4 a failure, those stupid selection animations, that stupid plasma menu, that stupid theme full of amateurish transparencies and rounded corners, those useless activities looking for a solution to a problem never existed, those stupid Windows with seven+ buttons, hey KDE developers, do you know what a toolbar is?

Trying to push that failure called Nepomuk, give up already if you haven't been able to fix it in 5 years you won't for the next version, still lack of usability, terrible defaults with the same excuse "configure it your self", still bloated in options, tell me, why do I need "Super slow" animations? why do I need to rotate a calculator 45 degrees? do you honestly think it will make it more usable? Still KWin bloated with toons of useless options, still too memory hungry, still the same arrogant developers who will make things their own way w/o listening the users. Still a failure.

I'm surprised to see so many complaints against KDE, especially KDE 4.x. I know the series got off to a rough start, but KDE 4.6 (and newer) have been great in my experience. I've been very happy with the past four or five releases. I will grant that the default theme some distributions ship are ugly, but it takes all of about ten seconds to pick a different look. The openSUSE team in particular always ship an attractive and blazingly fast KDE implementation.